what do the NM values of various cities really mean?

[Helsingor]

This question has almost certainly been answered before, so forgive me if I missed it, BUT
I would like to know if there is any consistent correlation between the NM value that appears on the map and the NM penalty (in percentage points) that a Major Power suffers when an NM Objective is taken for the first the time.
I kind of think there is NOT a consistent correlation (or maybe there was initially and then it was modified in subsequent versions, based on my recent experience.
In a recent PBEM game I was able to slip a US Marine LR Amphib unit into Tokyo in late 1942. Naturally, I was quite pleased with myself and ordered extra beer rations for the Jarheads. But Japanese NM did not change AT ALL. Even though Tokyo is listed as having an NM value of 100 (the highest possible number, I think).
Of course, as we all know, taking Paris (also NM Value100) usually triggers French surrender or at least seriously dents the French NM. And yes, I know that French the French NM total starting points are much lower than the Japanese and I wasn't expecting a Japanese surrender solely on the basis of capturing Tokyo (probably temporarily, I admit), but it seems weird that taking the capitol city, the Imperial Palace, and the symbolic center of the regime would have essentially no negative affect on Japanese will to fight.
In the actual war, the psychological effect of the Doolittle Raid, which did virtually no damage, was such that it caused Japanese High Command to rush into the attack on Midway. Wouldn't the actual occupation of Tokyo be even more damaging to NM?

[Bo Rearguard]

Of course, as we all know, taking Paris (also NM Value100) usually triggers French surrender or at least seriously dents the French NM. And yes, I know that French the French NM total starting points are much lower than the Japanese and I wasn't expecting a Japanese surrender solely on the basis of capturing Tokyo (probably temporarily, I admit), but it seems weird that taking the capitol city, the Imperial Palace, and the symbolic center of the regime would have essentially no negative affect on Japanese will to fight.
In the actual war, the psychological effect of the Doolittle Raid, which did virtually no damage, was such that it caused Japanese High Command to rush into the attack on Midway. Wouldn't the actual occupation of Tokyo be even more damaging to NM?

In addition to their lower starting morale, the French have a number of built-in scripted events they face early on that can make it snowball even lower. The fall of Poland, the flanking of the Maginot line, the continuation of the German blitzkrieg, etc. As far as I know there is no scripted national morale event for Japan's losing Tokyo other than the loss of 100 NM. So, if Japan is already riding high in the NM department, taking Tokyo will cause a dent, but not much more. You'd probably have to have a related event script written into the game to make such an loss more catastrophic. Either that or increase Tokyo's NM value. Since none of Japan's major cities were lost to invasion during the war it's hard to judge any effect by a historical example like with France.

In my opinion being able to project a force of unescorted Marines across the vast Pacific in what were at the time slow, fragile transports to land in the enemy capitol unopposed with no threat of being detected or intercepted or even facing minefields, coastal defense guns or local militia seems unrealistic as well, but it is how the game is currently designed so I can't fault the tactic. It does underline the need for an Axis player to at least keep a garrison there but I know from experience they're often spread thin suppressing partisans in China.

[Helsingor]

Thanks for the clarification, Cpl. Rearguard. (BTW I've enjoyed your icon for years--still makes me chuckle!)

So, let me see if I have this right: the taking of a city or resource hex will only knock off the designated number of NM points from the (often large) totals of NM points (shown in the NM bars on top of the display) UNLESS the hex is also designated as an NM Objective AND there is a script mandating a loss of NM. Is that correct?

As to the unlikeliness of a seaborne invasion across thousands of miles of ocean, I agree it is somewhat ahistorical (though, as you no doubt know, some of the TORCH invasion force sailed from Norfolk to the Atlantic coast of Morocco--in game terms this would have to have been by means of LRA.) But as you say, the Japanese player needs to commit only minimal resources to foil this strategy.
In the actual game I described, the invasion force came from Guam, which I had managed to hold on to. And it was preceded by a carrier raid the previous turn that sank ships in Tokyo Bay and Yokohama Harbor. Then on the turn of the landing, I did recon with a Maritime bomber. That's how I knew Tokyo was undefended. So not quite the "Hail Mary" play that you might have been envisioning.

That said, I do agree that in the mid-game, it's probably too easy for the Allied player to lob LRAs at various Pacific islands or even the Japanese Home Islands. The penalty for failure is pretty small and the reward for even a few unopposed landings is huge, given how many islands are NM locations with scripted penalties for the Japanese. Not sure of the best way to balance this out. I feel it might be best to increase Japanese recon capability somehow. I would also favor restrictions on the type of units that could go in as Amphib. AA (and possibly even AT) units should not be eligible to be used as Amphib, IMO

[Bo Rearguard]

So, let me see if I have this right: the taking of a city or resource hex will only knock off the designated number of NM points from the (often large) totals of NM points (shown in the NM bars on top of the display) UNLESS the hex is also designated as an NM Objective AND there is a script mandating a loss of NM. Is that correct?

That's how I understand it. Certain points on the map are labeled in orange as such NM trigger points. For instance taking Saipan should cause a 3000 down turn in NM for Japan.

Saipan.jpg (24.89 KiB) Viewed 887 times

[Bo Rearguard]

That said, I do agree that in the mid-game, it's probably too easy for the Allied player to lob LRAs at various Pacific islands or even the Japanese Home Islands. The penalty for failure is pretty small and the reward for even a few unopposed landings is huge, given how many islands are NM locations with scripted penalties for the Japanese. Not sure of the best way to balance this out. I feel it might be best to increase Japanese recon capability somehow. I would also favor restrictions on the type of units that could go in as Amphib. AA (and possibly even AT) units should not be eligible to be used as Amphib, IMO

I know Torch is often cited as the example of a trans-oceanic invasion, but it had a lot of factors that made it uniquely possible. No more Atlantic Kriegsmarine surface threat in 1942. No Axis maritime patrol capability in the central Atlantic or off western North Africa to spot the entire invasion armada before it arrived. Any Mediterranean exit barred and Vichy neutrality complicating any possible German intervention. Allied surprise was made easier because they were invading an unprepared neutral Vichy colony with seriously divided loyalties. Contrast this with the smaller Doolittle Raid in the Pacific where Halsey's carriers inevitably ran afoul of the line of picket ships the Japanese had deployed against such a contingency 800 miles out and had to launch the strike early. Luckily, the raid was still a success despite the loss of all the participating aircraft. However, the game is a You-go, I-go type and those do have their limitations especially with half-month turns. I do agree that some unit types should be barred from having that LR capability.

[wevilc]

That said, I do agree that in the mid-game, it's probably too easy for the Allied player to lob LRAs at various Pacific islands or even the Japanese Home Islands. The penalty for failure is pretty small and the reward for even a few unopposed landings is huge, given how many islands are NM locations with scripted penalties for the Japanese. Not sure of the best way to balance this out. I feel it might be best to increase Japanese recon capability somehow. I would also favor restrictions on the type of units that could go in as Amphib. AA (and possibly even AT) units should not be eligible to be used as Amphib, IMO

I know Torch is often cited as the example of a trans-oceanic invasion, but it had a lot of factors that made it uniquely possible. No more Atlantic Kriegsmarine surface threat in 1942. No Axis maritime patrol capability in the central Atlantic or off western North Africa to spot the entire invasion armada before it arrived. Any Mediterranean exit barred and Vichy neutrality complicating any possible German intervention. Allied surprise was made easier because they were invading an unprepared neutral Vichy colony with seriously divided loyalties. Contrast this with the smaller Doolittle Raid in the Pacific where Halsey's carriers inevitably ran afoul of the line of picket ships the Japanese had deployed against such a contingency 800 miles out and had to launch the strike early. Luckily, the raid was still a success despite the loss of all the participating aircraft. However, the game is a You-go, I-go type and those do have their limitations especially with half-month turns. I do agree that some unit types should be barred from having that LR capability.

There really should be a feature for 'liking' posts like those in this thread. Erudite & instructive. Thx

[Patrat]

SC War in the Pacific doesn't have LR amphibious transports. It makes for a much better and more realistic game.

[Helsingor]

SC War in the Pacific doesn't have LR amphibious transports. It makes for a much better and more realistic game.

Very interesting! I haven't tried WitP...perhaps I should.

[Patrat]

Yeah, no loading up off Lrats off the west coast and sending them direct to invade Japan. You actually have to island hop now.

[Bo Rearguard]

SC War in the Pacific doesn't have LR amphibious transports. It makes for a much better and more realistic game.

It also helps that the Pacific Ocean is huge in this game compared to its counterpart in World at War. Tokyo is 62 hexes from Midway compared to only 26 in SC:WW2 W@W. You definitely have to plan your amphibious moves ahead in the central Pacific. Plus, thanks to the finer scale, certain locations like Hawaii look more like islands and less like mini-continents.